The evolution of social entrepreneurship: what have we learned?

Abstract

Purpose-If there is one thing that truly characterizes entrepreneurship and especially social entrepreneurship, it is the "engaged scholarship" at their very heart. That is, teaching, outreach/service and research are connected, often tightly. The purpose of this paper therefore is to discuss the evolution of social entrepreneurship and the lessons learned. Design/methodology/approach-The paper reports on the results of a multi-country survey dealing with social entrepreneurship. Findings-It is found that a lot of maturing needs to be done in the area of social entrepreneurship work. Originality/value-This paper provides real value to the literature by showing what is actually done in the teaching of social entrepreneurship. social entrepreneurship | managerial effectiveness | action research | business Keywords: education Article: If there is one thing that truly characterizes entrepreneurship and especially social entrepreneurship, it is the "engaged scholarship" (Van de Ven, 2007) at their very heart. That is, teaching, outreach/service and research are connected, often tightly. However, as we will see, this has proven very much the proverbial "two-edged sword". While this engagement with the community, with entrepreneurs and with students has paid many dividends, many would also argue that this has impeded entrepreneurship from earning the kind of intellectual legitimacy that it needs to progress. It is not just that "ivory tower" mindsets do not exactly abound, it is also that the field shows a breadth that is remarkable in its inclusiveness, indeed, inclusive to a fault.

Validation of a measure of social entrepreneurship

“…Once the instrument has been further validated it can be used in order to examine what factors might differentially increase the likelihood to be a social or non-social entrepreneur. The current research is limited in terms of the sample characteristics so it is possible that different results might occur with different mean group differences in terms of gender, age, experience as an entrepreneur, education or country of origin (Welsh and Krueger, 2013).…”

“…Individuals used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to respond to statements including: 'There is constant bickering among my team members' (reverse scored) and 'Team members know that each one looks out for the other members as well as for him/herself'. We believe that owing to the social nature of social entrepreneurship that there should be a strong correlation between intergroup relations and social entrepreneurship (Welsh and Krueger, 2013).…”

“…Characteristics between the two types of entrepreneurs are very similar; however, differences fall in the purpose and motivational aspects (Spais and Beheshti, 2015). While the conventional entrepreneur is concerned with making money and growing their business, the social entrepreneur is concerned with satisfying a social need and helping society to be better than it was yesterday (Welsh and Krueger, 2013). Social entrepreneurs believe that there is more to life than business and making money.…”

“…Many entrepreneurs are acknowledging these opportunity increases by establishing themselves in the social arena (Welsh and Krueger, 2013). Their dreams of benefiting society can become a reality through the establishment of not-for-profit organisations (NFPs).…”

“…Individuals used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to respond to statements including: 'I definitely like my work', 'My work is pretty interesting', and 'I find real enjoyment in my work'. We believe that both social and regular entrepreneurs should enjoy and be satisfied with their work so we believe that there should not be meaningful differences between social entrepreneurship and job satisfaction (Miller et al, 2012;Welsh and Krueger, 2013) The third instrument is concerned with intergroup relationships and was measured using Hemphill's (1956) 12-item viscidity index. Individuals used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to respond to statements including: 'There is constant bickering among my team members' (reverse scored) and 'Team members know that each one looks out for the other members as well as for him/herself'.…”